Staff —

States and industry get a legal smackdown on climate

An appeals court draws an informative line between science and policy.

Although science and the law both deal with evidence and uncertainty, they approach these issues in ways that are different enough that a courtroom is generally a lousy place for determining the status of a scientific field. Nevertheless, so many aspects of our society now have a foundation in the sciences—medical care, policy, education, etc.—that science inevitably bumps up against the law quite often. One of the more striking instances of this occurred last week, as an Appeals Court handed down a ruling on greenhouse gasses that was largely overlooked because it happened to come down in the same week that the Supreme Court tackled health care law.

The decision is long on legal details, but there are some important lessons about science and its role in formulating policy that are worth drawing out.

Failing on legal grounds

We'll get the legal background out of the way first. The case is the latest in a long line of decisions about whether the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Back in the Clinton administration, several states banded together to sue the EPA, arguing that the CAA required that it take action. By the time the case had made it to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration's EPA was arguing (I'm obviously simplifying here) that greenhouse gas emissions were just too complicated to be regulated.

On 5-4 lines, the Supremes determined that the CAA was unambiguous: the EPA had to determine whether greenhouse gasses qualified as a pollutant and, if so, it needed to suck it up and figure out how to regulate them. Although the Bush-era EPA never got around to following the court's instructions, the Agency has since made an official endangerment finding and announced a preliminary set of rules to govern greenhouse gas emissions from large sources.

A different set of states, combined with a variety of industry groups, have sued to overturn the endangerment findings and block the regulations. The Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit has now rejected that attempt.

From a legal perspective, the rejection doesn't appear to be especially interesting. Ironically, the states and industry groups made arguments extremely similar to those put forward by the Bush-era EPA when it was trying to shirk its legal requirements on greenhouse gasses. Since those had already failed at the level of the Supreme Court, the Appeals Court also found them unpersuasive. Although there is some amusement value in seeing the states get slammed for hypocrisy when claiming they, rather than the EPA, should be doing the regulating: "Essentially, State Petitioners’ reply brief contends that, contrary to the position taken in the opening brief, they want more regulation, not less, and that they wanted regulation sooner rather than later."

The law as a sanity check

The more interesting parts of the decision comes when it turns to science. As a former scientist now deeply enmeshed in the scientific process, it's usually easy to see which arguments have scientific merit. But it's also easy to see that the public often doesn't see things the same way as a scientist does. For example, a lot of people outside the scientific community seemed to think Intelligent Design was scientific in nature and had some merit—it took its legal dismemberment at the Dover Trial for the idea to lose steam with the public. In that sense, the legal realm can provide an important outside perspective on where the science stands.

(This doesn't always work brilliantly, of course. For one example, see Antonin Scalia's dissent in the case that declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion [joined by Rehnquist]. As far as Scalia's concerned, you don't need to actually weigh evidence—if a few guys with PhDs say something's science, that's good enough for him. Fortunately, seven other justices had somewhat higher intellectual standards.)

Climate science seems to be another area where an outside sanity check would be a good thing. From my perspective, things were very straightforward: temperatures have gone up, the greenhouse effect and ocean acidification clearly exist, and the various attacks on the field and researchers themselves were generally overblown nitpicking. But it's clear that a lot of people haven't seen things that way, and some outside perspective could go a long way towards helping me feel I wasn't just convincing myself.

The Appeals Court delivered that, and then some.

One of the areas where a lot of people stumble when it comes to climate science is that they can't separate the science from its policy implications. By design or chance, it turns out the CAA explicitly separates them—the EPA is required to perform its endangerment evaluation based on the science, ignoring any policy consequences that might be dictated by the results. "Policy judgments," the court ruled, "have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. Still less do they amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment."

So, how does one form a scientific judgement? Ideally, you consult with the people who have the most relevant expertise in the area, and determine what the current state of the field is. So, the EPA considered reports on climate change from groups like the IPCC and the National Academies of Science. That, apparently, didn't sit well with the states and industry. "State and Industry Petitioners assert that EPA improperly 'delegated' its judgment to the IPCC, USGCRP, and NRC."

This is in keeping with the general disparagement of expertise when it comes to arguments over climate change, where many arm-chair scientists feel they've stumbled across insights that people who have devoted their lives to the topic have somehow missed. The court would have none of it, stating "This argument is little more than a semantic trick."

EPA simply did here what it and other decision-makers often must do to make a science-based judgment: it sought out and reviewed existing scientific evidence to determine whether a particular finding was warranted. It makes no difference that much of the scientific evidence in large part consisted of 'syntheses' of individual studies and research.

Expecting it to do otherwise, the decision notes, would have some ludicrous consequences. "This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."

The IPCC in particular has been the target of criticism, with accusations of a selective use of the literature and the fact that a few errors made their way past its review system. But the Court puts that in perspective, noting that the latest IPCC report references 18,000 peer-reviewed papers. And, as far as the judges could tell, it did a good job with that information. "State Petitioners have not, as they assert, uncovered a 'pattern' of flawed science. Only two of the errors they point out seem to be errors at all, and EPA relied on neither in making the Endangerment Finding."

The climate e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia also made an appearance in the suit, being used to cast doubt on the quality of the underlying science. Again, the Court was unpersuaded, finding "The petitioners’ claims based on the CRU documents were exaggerated, contradicted by other evidence, and not a material or reliable basis for questioning the credibility of the body of science at issue."

Like all other fields of science, there are clear areas of residual uncertainty when it comes to the climate (many of them, in fact, are discussed in the IPCC reports). To many of the critics of the field, however, the uncertainties are so large that it's impossible to say anything with much confidence. But those arguments tend to lose sight of the number of things that we do know with a high degree of confidence. "To avoid regulating emissions of greenhouse gases, EPA would need to show 'scientific uncertainty... so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming,'" the Court concluded. The remaining uncertainties simply don't rise to that level.

The law separated from the science

Legal experts should never have the last word on climate science—they're not the experts in this area, and courtroom proceedings aren't structured in a way that will necessarily bring out the best scientific information. But in this case turned out to be less about the science, and more about the public arguments over the science.

Ultimately, the states and industry turned their case into a neat package that brought together most of the arguments you'll see if you follow the public debate. While scientists may argue over the relative strengths of some specific feedbacks, the questions the public sees (reiterated by the states) blur the lines between the science and our policy responses to it, while focusing on things like whether the IPCC can be trusted and if the stolen University of East Anglia e-mails are an indication of scientific fraud.

The language of the CAA compelled the court to examine the science separately from the policy issues. And, when it came to the science, the court didn't have to focus on the details—it just had to determine whether the EPA managed to base its decisions on a reasonable overview of our current state of knowledge on greenhouse gas emissions.

And, rather decisively, the court ruled that it had. The stolen e-mails and attacks on the IPCC's credibility, in the court's view, were little more than a distraction from the EPA's attempts to identify the groups with relevant expertise, and to summarize what they (and their 18,000 references) have concluded. In short, the popular arguments largely occupy a completely separate sphere from the relevant science.

It's an important message, one that applies to a number of other fields. It's a bit of a shame that the health care decision completely overshadowed it.

Latest Ars Video >

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

The Greatest Leap, Episode 3: Triumph

In honor of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Apollo Program, Ars Technica brings you an in depth look at the Apollo missions through the eyes of the participants.

119 Reader Comments

Nice summary, I had no idea this was going on. Sounds like the court ruled on exactly what the court should have. Maybe this ruling can now be brought into some other science vs non-science policy debates? Or maybe it'll go up to the SCOTUS and they'll say the same thing. Now that would be great!

Expecting it to do otherwise, the decision notes, would have some ludicrous consequences. "This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."

Thank you for covering this. It definitely seems to have gotten lost in the brouhaha surrounding the health care decision by SCOTUS, and other current events, but it's an interesting and heartening decision. It doesn't have the same drama as Dover, but it could have similar effects overall. I particularly think that what you wrote regarding science vs action deserves particular emphasis:

Quote:

One of the areas where a lot of people stumble when it comes to climate science is that they can't separate the science from its policy implications.

This is really, really important, and is all the more important to confront in that it stems from natural human psychology. Having a firm grasp and knowledge of a situation does not necessarily dictate any single response. It's perfectly possible that the entire nation could fully acknowledge global warming, have a very good grasp of exactly what it'll be, look at all the information, and then decide not to do much anyway (perhaps because in balance the cost is still higher then the result). Having the best science available is merely a way to come to a decision with both eyes open, but many people seem to think that the better choice is to try to stick our heads in the sand and deny having science or factual information in the first place, and use that to make decisions. It's a really unfortunate phenomenon that so many would rather avoid confronting uncomfortable truths entirely then facing them head on.

Expecting it to do otherwise, the decision notes, would have some ludicrous consequences. "This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."

Our precarious high-tech society clearly depends on experts for its maintenance, preservation and expansion, but our policymakers would like to keep the experts and ditch the concept of expertise.

In making lobby-based policy, it is essential that facts not only be kept out of the discussion, but dismissed derisively as quibbles.

The recent SOPA/PIPA reversal showed what happens when the ignored experta decide to exercise their power by, in effect, going on strike. That's what the shutdown of Wikipedia was, the withdrawal of services provided by experts, when they found their expertise to be ignored.

The question is, in what other ways can the force of experts be brought to bear with the public, and against policymakers who ignore them. The answer would appear to be new forms of collective action by the people who know how things work, and what could break these workings.

The alternative, despite hopeful signs like this decision and process, is continued marginalization of expertise, to the detriment of society.

The recent SOPA/PIPA reversal showed what happens when the ignored experta decide to exercise their power by, in effect, going on strike. That's what the shutdown of Wikipedia was, the withdrawal of services provided by experts, when they found their expertise to be ignored.

The problem with this is the experts are then getting heavily into determining policy. The point of this article is that the science and experts are better looked at disengaged from that front.

The recent SOPA/PIPA reversal showed what happens when the ignored experta decide to exercise their power by, in effect, going on strike. That's what the shutdown of Wikipedia was, the withdrawal of services provided by experts, when they found their expertise to be ignored.

The problem with this is the experts are then getting heavily into determining policy. The point of this article is that the science and experts are better looked at disengaged from that front.

I'm not seeing the problem.

Are you stating that scientific realities shouldn't have an impact on policy?

Brandon, what is the issue with having people with merit (expertise) have their say in something? Is is better that politicians who have less merit to make a decision have all the say? There should be a fair amount of deference to those with merit. This is what is crazy with politicians these days, many view dogma as the most important thing in making policy, and some people believe that there should be activism and not pacifism by those with merit because it is so crazy.

The recent SOPA/PIPA reversal showed what happens when the ignored experta decide to exercise their power by, in effect, going on strike. That's what the shutdown of Wikipedia was, the withdrawal of services provided by experts, when they found their expertise to be ignored.

The problem with this is the experts are then getting heavily into determining policy. The point of this article is that the science and experts are better looked at disengaged from that front.

I'm not seeing the problem.Are you stating that scientific realities shouldn't have an impact on policy?

I think he's arguing that it will politicize the experts, whose advocacy then becomes unreliable because it might be based less on their expertise and more on their willingness to back specific policies.

The recent SOPA/PIPA reversal showed what happens when the ignored experta decide to exercise their power by, in effect, going on strike. That's what the shutdown of Wikipedia was, the withdrawal of services provided by experts, when they found their expertise to be ignored.

The problem with this is the experts are then getting heavily into determining policy. The point of this article is that the science and experts are better looked at disengaged from that front.

I'm not seeing the problem.Are you stating that scientific realities shouldn't have an impact on policy?

I think he's arguing that it will politicize the experts, whose advocacy then becomes unreliable because it might be based less on their expertise and more on their willingness to back specific policies.

Can you expand on this or give an example of what you're talking about? Do you mean mass selling out by scientific experts or are you talking about lone guns easily accounted for and drowned out if policy makers are paying attention to the massively peer reviewed consensus?

Thank you for covering this. It definitely seems to have gotten lost in the brouhaha surrounding the health care decision by SCOTUS, and other current events, but it's an interesting and heartening decision. It doesn't have the same drama as Dover, but it could have similar effects overall. I particularly think that what you wrote regarding science vs action deserves particular emphasis:

Quote:

One of the areas where a lot of people stumble when it comes to climate science is that they can't separate the science from its policy implications.

This is really, really important, and is all the more important to confront in that it stems from natural human psychology. Having a firm grasp and knowledge of a situation does not necessarily dictate any single response. It's perfectly possible that the entire nation could fully acknowledge global warming, have a very good grasp of exactly what it'll be, look at all the information, and then decide not to do much anyway (perhaps because in balance the cost is still higher then the result). Having the best science available is merely a way to come to a decision with both eyes open, but many people seem to think that the better choice is to try to stick our heads in the sand and deny having science or factual information in the first place, and use that to make decisions. It's a really unfortunate phenomenon that so many would rather avoid confronting uncomfortable truths entirely then facing them head on.

You summarized my frustration exceedingly well. I find it bizarre that people would attack the science instead of debating the merits of action vs inaction. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree on an appropriate response to the situation but denying reality is for people who believe they have a losing argument.

Can you expand on this or give an example of what you're talking about? Do you mean mass selling out by scientific experts or are you talking about lone guns easily accounted for and drowned out if policy makers are paying attention to the massively peer reviewed consensus?

It's the perception that matters. If people buy into the argument that experts are some kind of "activist" that are pushing their own agenda instead of trying to get people to understand the issue, that obviously erodes the influence of expertise.Also this isn't really my argument, I think this is what Brandon B is getting at.

I find this all to be completely nuts with having the primary motivation of keeping lawyers and judges employed. The CAA is about contaminants in the air that have adverse health effects when taken into the human body. Shoehorning greenhouse gases into the CAA is something that the originators of the law never intended. If the lawyers and judges respected the origin/motivation of the law they never would have tried these shenanigans, but of course, they are all in bed giving each other massages and making sure everyone gets paid so this is how these things happen. Carbon dioxide is not toxic. Anthropogenic global warming needs to be addressed by governments with laws about population reduction and fossil fuel combustion; the CAA is the wrong avenue for these things.

I'm not sure why the EPA finds regulating carbon emissions so difficult. Just place a tax on all items that are meant to be burned (ie. fossil fuels), and possibly all devices meant to burn said items. Fossil fuels are also used to make plastics, and so aren't all directly burned, but plastics are also environmentally problematic. To the extent that a plastic is biodegradable, like some eco-plastics, its producer gets a tax reimbursement. Not seeing what's so complicated.

I find this all to be completely nuts with having the primary motivation of keeping lawyers and judges employed. The CAA is about contaminants in the air that have adverse health effects when taken into the human body.

No, it's about things that are hazardous human health. There was no "when taken into the human body" limit.

Quote:

Carbon dioxide is not toxic.

Dead wrong. Have you ever watched Apollo 13? The situation that required NASA to scramble and design a new CO2 scrubber arose not because the astronauts were running out of oxygen, but because CO2 was building up in the craft. They had all the breathable oxygen they'd need, but CO2 would build up to harmful levels and kill them without a scrubber that could take it out of their air. Breathing into a bag isn't a problem because you run out of oxygen, it's a problem because it raises the CO2 levels in your blood. CO2 is also common way to euthanize laboratory animals.

Quote:

Anthropogenic global warming needs to be addressed by governments with laws about population reduction and fossil fuel combustion; the CAA is the wrong avenue for these things.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions clearly fall under the mandate for the Clean Air Act. It is a pollutant under the terms of the law. The appeals court is not the first to have ruled on this, SCOTUS did too. And if the EPA can appeal to the Clean Air Act, it certainly has the power to address fossil fuel combustion; that's actually what their regulation is going to do.

Can you expand on this or give an example of what you're talking about? Do you mean mass selling out by scientific experts or are you talking about lone guns easily accounted for and drowned out if policy makers are paying attention to the massively peer reviewed consensus?

It's the perception that matters. If people buy into the argument that experts are some kind of "activist" that are pushing their own agenda instead of trying to get people to understand the issue, that obviously erodes the influence of expertise.Also this isn't really my argument, I think this is what Brandon B is getting at.

Ah, the results of the dunning Kruger effect. People start thinking experts who make the empirically demonstrable known in policy discussions are really just "liberals" bent on destroying America who don't know nothin'.

Yeah, it seems this is already a problem of indeterminate breadth among the general populace. Ever watch Fox News?

I find this all to be completely nuts with having the primary motivation of keeping lawyers and judges employed. The CAA is about contaminants in the air that have adverse health effects when taken into the human body.

That's not what the act says though. That may be what you'd like it to say vibedog. It may even be what the writers meant. But it is completely reasonable for courts to heavily base decisions on, you know, the actual law as written (after all, Congress can always go back and clarify if they so desire). Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act states (emphasis added):

Quote:

The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

That doesn't say "that may cause effects when taken into the human body", that very clearly is much, much more general language. Would, for example, major sea level rises (or environmental shifts) endanger the public welfare? Certainly seems like a strong case can be made. A specific CAA example is acid rain, which itself is not dangerous to human health (the acid is far, far too dilute to have any effect over background). Despite that though, the CAA has specific provisions (and the 1990 amendment added to that) for dealing with it. Acid rain coming down over the North East isn't going to cause everyone to get sick but it definitely affects the public welfare.

Quote:

Shoehorning greenhouse gases into the CAA is something that the originators of the law never intended.

Then they can amend the law and update the language. That's their job (and in fact the CAA has received at least four major amendments over the decades IIRC). In the absence of that though the wording as it stands seems to be very clearly a lot more general then what you are asserting, and it's not ambiguous either. Hence the rulings by the Courts. I do not find your argument here convincing.

The recent SOPA/PIPA reversal showed what happens when the ignored experta decide to exercise their power by, in effect, going on strike. That's what the shutdown of Wikipedia was, the withdrawal of services provided by experts, when they found their expertise to be ignored.

The problem with this is the experts are then getting heavily into determining policy. The point of this article is that the science and experts are better looked at disengaged from that front.

I'm not seeing the problem.Are you stating that scientific realities shouldn't have an impact on policy?

I think he's arguing that it will politicize the experts, whose advocacy then becomes unreliable because it might be based less on their expertise and more on their willingness to back specific policies.

Can you expand on this or give an example of what you're talking about? Do you mean mass selling out by scientific experts or are you talking about lone guns easily accounted for and drowned out if policy makers are paying attention to the massively peer reviewed consensus?

I don't think its about selling it, it's about separating the people who examine the problem from those who determine a solution. If someone is given the job of determining the facts, the problem created by those facts, the solution and how to create that solution; those responsible could degrade any of these steps to make another part of their job simpler. A scientific mind would benefit any of these steps, but it would also recognize that being involved in all of them could cause error in any of them.

Really aside from the Posner ridiculousness, this was a good couple of weeks for court rulings. I feel on balance better about the court system than I did a couple weeks ago. Especially the SCOTUS which I thought was a lost cause for the past couple years.

I don't think its about selling it, it's about separating the people who examine the problem from those who determine a solution. If someone is given the job of determining the facts, the problem created by those facts, the solution and how to create that solution; those responsible could degrade any of these steps to make another part of their job simpler. A scientific mind would benefit any of these steps, but it would also recognize that being involved in all of them could cause error in any of them.

I have seen this argument before. The argument is flawed. It is the equivalent of stating that engineering should not be allowed both to examine a bridge for possible damage and to design new bridges. If a person has the expertise to understand the problem, that person (or people with similar training) need to be involved in finding solutions.

People who lack expertise in technical problems generally have opinions about them, but I would avoid driving over a bridge that was not designed by a civil engineer.

Thank you for covering this. It definitely seems to have gotten lost in the brouhaha surrounding the health care decision by SCOTUS, and other current events, but it's an interesting and heartening decision. It doesn't have the same drama as Dover, but it could have similar effects overall. I particularly think that what you wrote regarding science vs action deserves particular emphasis:

Quote:

One of the areas where a lot of people stumble when it comes to climate science is that they can't separate the science from its policy implications.

This is really, really important, and is all the more important to confront in that it stems from natural human psychology. Having a firm grasp and knowledge of a situation does not necessarily dictate any single response. It's perfectly possible that the entire nation could fully acknowledge global warming, have a very good grasp of exactly what it'll be, look at all the information, and then decide not to do much anyway (perhaps because in balance the cost is still higher then the result). Having the best science available is merely a way to come to a decision with both eyes open, but many people seem to think that the better choice is to try to stick our heads in the sand and deny having science or factual information in the first place, and use that to make decisions. It's a really unfortunate phenomenon that so many would rather avoid confronting uncomfortable truths entirely then facing them head on.

Oh, I think there's a clear reason for that though. To acknowledge the existence and seriousness of climate change, and then contrast it with the way that the energy we produce with our fossil fuel burning is largely wasted or spent on things that are ultimately rather frivolous would force them to face the immorality of doing nothing. Nobody will willingly face up to the moral dimensions of their bad acts. Certainly not without first experiencing the harm from a different perspective. Mass murdering ruthless dictators and the armies and police who do their bidding almost never admit culpability and generally continue to deny the evilness of their actions. Corrupt elites build whole fantasmagoric palaces of imagination and rationalization to live in rather than face the damage they do to society, etc. Humans are very bad at admitting they're wrong and very good at playing pretend. No amount of science is ever going to change that.

I find this all to be completely nuts with having the primary motivation of keeping lawyers and judges employed. The CAA is about contaminants in the air that have adverse health effects when taken into the human body. Shoehorning greenhouse gases into the CAA is something that the originators of the law never intended.

Citations needed...

Quote:

If the lawyers and judges respected the origin/motivation of the law they never would have tried these shenanigans, but of course, they are all in bed giving each other massages and making sure everyone gets paid so this is how these things happen.

More citations needed. You want to throw around accusations of corruption, then I want lock, stock and barrel names, dates, amounts, etc. Otherwise blow it... generating a bunch of fud with BS unfounded accusations won't fly, so don't bother.

Quote:

Carbon dioxide is not toxic. Anthropogenic global warming needs to be addressed by governments with laws about population reduction and fossil fuel combustion; the CAA is the wrong avenue for these things.

Well, the CAA and the EPA in general has nothing to say about population, but the CAA is a law, and it NOW DOES govern fossil fuel combustion. If we feel that Congress can make a different law for that which serves our needs better, we're fully capable of doing that. The issue here was not law, it was obstructionism and political attempts to silence the EPA in its legal responsibility to make findings on the science. The findings have been made, and the law upheld. Time to move on.

I only recently started looking into the details of AGW. I see a very strong relationship from the anti-global warming crowd and the long debunked creationists. In looking up one their "experts", I noted he had declared an oath to only giving support to evidence that favored anti-global warming. Ah, the memories of debating creationists.

Well, it doesn't take much to realize that too much CO2 is bad for a planet. Just ask a Venutian while they are taking a swim in their led pond. And if it's manmade, ask which isotope of CO2 is increasing fastest.

Expecting it to do otherwise, the decision notes, would have some ludicrous consequences. "This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question."

And so America slides further into 3rd world obscurity because a bunch of idiot lawyers were hoodwinked into thinking that man made global warming exists.

I'll be waiting for when you guys are all bitching about your $9/gallon gasoline and wondering why the hell you should be paying so much. Don't even try and convince anyone you won't bitch about it, because we all know you will.

Looking like it's time to pack up and move to Canada. Where they don't allow pseudo-scientific garbage to determine economic policy that will ruin the nation.

And so America slides further into 3rd world obscurity because a bunch of idiot lawyers were hoodwinked into thinking that man made global warming exists.

I'll be waiting for when you guys are all bitching about your $9/gallon gasoline and wondering why the hell you should be paying so much. Don't even try and convince anyone you won't bitch about it, because we all know you will.

Looking like it's time to pack up and move to Canada. Where they don't allow pseudo-scientific garbage to determine economic policy that will ruin the nation.

All these thoughtful comments, and then this...

Do you really think moving to Canada will solve your problem?

"The increasing concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere-those generated through industrialization and the increasing global demand for energy-has intensified the greenhouse effect that is leading to climate change...

...As part of Canada's 2009 commitment under the Copenhagen Accord (PDF, 163 KB, 5 pages) on climate change, the Canadian government is providing $400 million in fast-start climate change financing for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. This is Canada's largest-ever contribution to international efforts to address climate change."

Also... "Given the highly integrated nature of the North American economy, this includes aligning our climate policies with the United States."

"o America slides further into 3rd world obscurity because a bunch of idiot lawyers were hoodwinked into thinking that man made global warming exists."

And Britain, and Mexico, and Japan, and Spain, and France, and China, and just about every country that has a climatologist.

"I'll be waiting for when you guys are all bitching about your $9/gallon gasoline and wondering why the hell you should be paying so much. Don't even try and convince anyone you won't bitch about it, because we all know you will."

You need to serve cheese with your whine.

"Looking like it's time to pack up and move to Canada. Where they don't allow pseudo-scientific garbage to determine economic policy that will ruin the nation."

Their scientists concur that man made global warming is valid too.......DOH!

Have you thought about moving to Venus? Lots of CO2 there and the lead pools are nice.

And so America slides further into 3rd world obscurity because a bunch of idiot lawyers were hoodwinked into thinking that man made global warming exists.

I'll be waiting for when you guys are all bitching about your $9/gallon gasoline and wondering why the hell you should be paying so much. Don't even try and convince anyone you won't bitch about it, because we all know you will.

Looking like it's time to pack up and move to Canada. Where they don't allow pseudo-scientific garbage to determine economic policy that will ruin the nation.

Yes - it's a shame that the IPCC report (and indeed this case and article) don't reference as much factual data as your post.

Oh, wait... your argument (if I stoop to call it that) is that "it's all made up". Yes - good job you're here to spot the conspiracy.

Very good article. I was a little puzzled at how the court came to that final decision until I realised that this wasn't in front of the Supreme Court, where learned justices clearly already know how the Earth came to be and don't need scientists telling them how their watches work.

It's nice to see courts that can decide issues on evidence rather than politics. <Cough> Scalia and the Supremes <cough>.

And so America slides further into 3rd world obscurity because a bunch of idiot lawyers were hoodwinked into thinking that man made global warming exists.

I'll be waiting for when you guys are all bitching about your $9/gallon gasoline and wondering why the hell you should be paying so much. Don't even try and convince anyone you won't bitch about it, because we all know you will.

Looking like it's time to pack up and move to Canada. Where they don't allow pseudo-scientific garbage to determine economic policy that will ruin the nation.

There is a ceiling on oil prices before alternatives start making more sense. That ceiling is below $9 in current dollars. So I'm not that worried. Even at $5 a lot of stuff starts making sense, and at $7 serious alternatives that can be mass produced(say, biodiesel produced by algae) start to become very profitable.

"It's a bit of a shame that the health care decision completely overshadowed it."

Its more of a shame that the health care decision even exists.

But not as much of a shame as a first world nation that left more than 20% of its population without access to routine medical care.

Tisk tisk.Medicare and Medicaid cover those who can't afford.If a person is without routine medical care they don't want it.

I know lots of people who do not qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. And cannot afford a private plan. One friend of mine has had cancer, twice. Before age 30. When it comes to getting insured, he's completely f'd. My mother does not qualify for anything either, and her job does not provide it. Guess it just sucks to be her, eh?

If Medicare and Medicaid covered everyone who could not get private coverage at a reasonable rate I doubt we'd ever have had this national discussion.

Primordius OTYou are very funny.I give away tens of thousands of dollars of free care every year to poor and working poor without insurance and with inadequate insurance. My hospital system does the same on the scale of millions.

These are not bloated estimates. In fact given my subspecialty's scarcity in much of the country I should be able to charge double and triple my current rates, inflating these numbers to 6 figures if the insurance monopolies did not control payment. (My next new patient opening is January 2013)

My patients have Rheumatoid and Lupus and Myositis and MCTD and Overlap syndromes and scleroderma. And the misinformed rants I have seen in these pages in the past notwithstanding, these illnesses do not result from peoples' choices. No weight loss, exercise, or vegan diet will impact their course perceptibly or the fact of their original illness. Perhaps if mom aborted when apprised of her offsprings' genetic risk we could limit their numbers slightly, or not.

Many of them after a time become Med... eligible but the time with no or limited insurance takes its toll. And they are sick,real sick and they mostly want care.

You do need to work in this field and/or make a real study of it before you can begin to understand the economics of it and the chasm between real health care economics and the trivialized incorrect version of it that is discussed in the legislatures and the media. Bopper